Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares on self-account, derivative transactions and share broking activity with main intention to earn business profits. According to AO, there is no material difference or any deviation in the nature

The issue arises for consideration is non-deduction of tax for payment of ship charter hire charges. Assessee is engaged in the business of import and export of merchandise goods exporting goods mainly to Maldives. For purpose of export of goods the

Assessee-company,engaged in the business of trading of cut and polished diamonds,filed its return of income declaring loss at Rs.2,19,91,359/-.AO finalised the assessment u/s.143(3) determining the total income of Rs.78,57, 190/-. Effective ground of

Assessee purchased for a consideration by entering into an agreement of sale in 2002 for a consideration of Rs.13.44 crores and received an advance of Rs.7.70 crores. However, in 2007, assessee as ‘guarantor’ executed irrevocable General Power of A

HSBC Electronic Data ProcessingIndia Private Limited (hereafter referred to as ' HDPI ') is awholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings Plc (together with its associates referred to as 'HSBC Group'). During the course of assessment, the TPO after obtai

The Petitioner, Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd., is a wholly owned subsidiary of a non-resident company, Vodafone Tele-Services (India) Holdings Limited (the holding company). In AY 2009-10,the Petitioner issued equity shares on a premium to its ho

In this case the Full bench of Supreme Court has struck down the National Tax Tribunals Act, 2005 as unconstitutional. Though tribunalization has been allowed at the original stage subject to certain safeguards, the boundaries have been crossed by th

The case was selected for scrutiny as per computer selection. Appellant contended that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer as required u/s 143(2)(i) and that issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatoryand omission on the part of

The appeals filed by the assessee for AY 1994-95 and 1996-97 were delayed by 2984 days. The assessee claimed that he was advised by his CAM/s Rajesh Rajeev Associatesthat since he had already filed an appeal for AY 1993-94 which was pending before th

This appeal by the Revenue raised the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the ITAT is justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.59,63,410/- being the amount of enhanced compensation received by the assessee during the year? 2.